Redemption And Punishment
This will probably be the last thing I write about Josh Lueke for a while, but after receiving a few compelling emails about the subject and having some conversations with people who don’t follow the team or know anything about his situation, I thought it would be worth having a discussion about. Please, keep the comments civil – I know this is a sensitive topic for a lot of folks.
The details surrounding the incident that Lueke was involved with are awful. Here is the original story from his arrest, and then coverage of his no-contest plea. Regardless of what legal terminology is used, it’s pretty obvious that Lueke did something to a girl that should never happen. We weren’t there, and there’s no way any of us can know exactly what happened that night, but there is little doubt that Lueke’s actions that night were despicable, to say the least. There is no justifying what happened, even without knowing all the details.
So, now, the Mariners have a pitcher in the organization that did something awful. A lot of people, when they find out about what happened, want the Mariners to get rid of him, as they don’t want to be faced with the situation of having to root for a guy who has this kind of history. When we did the poll last week on whether you would root for Lueke as a Mariner, 24 percent of those responding said that they would not. For them, his crime outweighs any help he could offer to the team by pitching well. This is a totally understandable point of view.
However, there’s another level that goes beyond not rooting for the kid, and that’s the belief that the Mariners (and presumably, every other Major League organization) should not be willing to employ him. And that’s a position that I don’t think I can get behind. Lueke spent 42 days in jail due to his actions, and has satisfied the legal punishment laid out by the laws of the land. There are no pending charges against him. He has not gotten in any trouble since the incident occurred. By most accounts, he’s remorseful for what happened, and has gone along with all of the requirements set out by the organization since he was acquired, including mandatory counseling.
The argument that the Mariners should cut ties with Lueke is essentially based on a “one strike and you’re out” policy that offers no chance for redemption. Should a 19-year-olds mistake prevent him from pursuing his chosen career after his legally required debt to society has been paid? I don’t think so. As much as it makes my skin crawl when I think about how I would feel if the victim had been my daughter, I also have to consider how I might feel if Lueke was my son.
I’m sure my (eventual) children will not be perfect, and they’ll make some pretty big mistakes. I hope that, when they do, forgiveness and redemption are offered to them, and that they have a chance to make things right. In no way do I want to minimize what Lueke did, but at the same time, I believe that he should be afforded the opportunity to make a living, just like any other person in America who was not in the public spotlight. I can’t support the notion that one night of horrible decision making should be enough to justify the end of Lueke’s career.
He has paid for his crime, and he will continue to in the days to come. It will follow him around for the rest of his life, and deservedly so. But, I don’t believe that punishment should go so far as to nullify a chance at redemption. Lueke deserves another shot to do better. He’s going to have to live on the thinnest of ice, where any future screw-ups will likely spell the end of his career, but he should get the chance to do so.
I will feel certainly feel conflicted every time he puts on a Mariner uniform. My feelings, however, should not negate his right to pitch in the big leagues.
Following up on Pete’s thoughts on the legal aspect, a blog piece by “a criminal defense attorney” popped up today on Seattle Sports Insider
I think you are the one who isn’t getting it. According to your logic, it would be illegal for drunk people to have sex, and the woman, as well as Lueke, should be charged with rape.
“Factually incorrect. By his account and by the DA’s account, there was no rape. Legally there is no rape.”
You have used “factually” and “legally” to mean the same thing, and they are not. That you would fail to draw a distinction between the two is interesting.
The defense of Lueke seems to come down to rationalizing his situation based on a favorable interpretation of information we do not know, and how things played out in court, as if the legal system is a perfect moral arbiter. Those folks against Lueke (like me) are relying on circumstantial information that implies but does not certify guilt.
There’s room for both sides to be wrong. Folks should debate with that in mind.
As much as we’re all sick of this story, I encourage you to listen to KJR’s interview with Josh Lueke’s lawyer, David Torres, before closing the topic. Assuming Torres speaks for Josh Lueke (and the fact that Geoff Baker interviewed Torres with Lueke’s apparent consent a few weeks ago suggests he is still acting as Lueke’s representative in the media), I think Torres’ statements blatantly contradict the assessment that “By most accounts, he’s remorseful for what happened.” Torres asserts Josh’s innocence, disputes the suggestion that Lueke’s DNA was found on or in the woman, and even questions the “alleged” victim’s character (at one even stating that she was wearing “skimpy clothing”). He also claims there was no violence, although we all know that he entered a plea of “no contest” to False Imprisonment with Violence.
This thread has focused primarily on Josh Lueke himself, whether he deserves a second chance, etc. I think the toughest question we could ask ourselves as fans isn’t “Does Josh deserve a chance to redeem himself?”, but rather: “Will having Josh Lueke play for the Seattle Mariners potentially increase the likelihood of date rape (violence against women, or what have you)?” Perhaps this sounds like overreach or pontificating, but it’s at the heart of why such a crime takes on more significance in sports than in other professions. This decision we should make as fans (I believe) isn’t about how to judge Josh Lueke or whether he should be punished, given a chance, etc; it’s whether we should want him as an athlete to represent our city, and how his doing so could affect the public’s perceptions of his actions (which are clearly related to, if not equivalent to, the crime of date rape).
If he has truly shown remorse, and worked to prevent something similar from happening to other women, putting him on a major league team could be a net positive. If he hasn’t, doing so would help set back at least partially the work done by many groups to dispel myths that help perpetuate date rape. Fans by nature will want to root for him. I hate the term “role model”, but the business of sports undeniably is rooted in the innate human desire to identify with and root for members of “their” tribe. The comments on Seattle Times, Lookout Landing, Bakersfield Times, and even (too a much lesser extent) USS Mariner stories re: Lueke clearly show fans looking for reasons, logic, or speculative realities that could justify or diminish Lueke’s behavior, which has the real life (if unquantifiable) consequence of keeping the “blame the victim” alive for a bit longer and eroding work done in the past few decades to stigmatize date rape.
Given this dynamic, the people who would win by putting him on the roster are Josh Lueke himself and the fans that want to see their hometown team win. The losers might be girls or women who might be date raped because efforts to stigmatize odious beliefs that this situation is about, e.g., “the perils of (a) getting way too drunk, and (b) bringing home a girl who’s way too drunk.” The chance that even one additional woman could be date raped because of Lueke’s promotion to the big league may be small, but it’s not infinitesimal or inconsequential. And if Lueke had done or said something publicly that might have offset that small chance, the equation changes – but he hasn’t, and his lawyer has actually made things a hell of a lot worse in this regard.
MarcS, I actually linked to that interview earlier in the comments, and at the time indicated I didn’t think the lawyer was doing Lueke any favors from a PR standpoint. BUT, I think you are wrong to equate or attribute too much of the lawyer’s comments to actual lack of remorse by Lueke himself.
Lueke and his lawyer may believe for a variety of reasons that, if they had tried the case, he would likely have been acquitted and may want to seek a forum to say that and explain why under those circumstances they would accept the plea deal they did. It is sometimes difficult to project remorse at the same time as one is trying to convey that message (though this lawyer should have tried a helluva lot harder to do so than he did), particularly if one believes in his own innocence.
“Remorse” may actually be the wrong word to use here, as it implies a guilt that Lueke (or really, his attorney – let’s not put words in Lueke’s mouth) does not believe he has. But I absolutely agree with you about this: Josh Lueke needs to understand, and accept, that he may horrible choices with horrible consequences for this girl – and for him. Whether or not he believes he is “guilty” or not, he should be sorry for that, recognize that he has a somewhat unique platform to educate other young men about the consequences of making choices such as the ones he made that night, and probably has some moral obligation to utilize that platform to make *some* good come out of a horrific situation. If he does that, it will make a difference to a lot of people, and will be absolutely consistent with the Mariners’ Refuse to Abuse program and their support of and affiliation with groups fighting domestic abuse.
An interesting discussion…but I’m more concerned about what we do now, rather than what happened (or might have happened or definitely happened but couldn’t be proved by our legal standards) then…and that leads me to more questions than I can answer.
Are we, by living in and/or rooting for a team based in Seattle somehow required to expect more of the character of our chosen sports team members than other towns?
The Seahawks made it very clear they would never even think about signing Michael Vick. The Mariners made it very clear they would never even think about signing Barry Bonds. The Sonics shipped out Ruben Patterson as soon as they could.
And yet, this town has proven that what they really respond to is WINNING. All of this talk about attendance being impacted by the character of a team seems foolish when compared to the reality of how these teams are drawing…unless they’re winning.
Do we really “Gotta Love These Guys”…more so than Los Angeles has to love everything about Kobe Bryant or Pittsburgh has to love everything about Big Ben? Are we hamstringing ourselves and our competitiveness unnecessarily?
We survived Carl Everett, Jose Guillen, Milton Bradley–when a lot of people thought the sky would fall if we ever let them into our town. We even made a hero out of Xavier McDaniel (although, the team shipped him out, too…)
Did more people come to see the Mariners play when they cut ties to Julio Mateo? Would the stands be empty if they hadn’t…and would that have been because they hadn’t cut ties to him or because the team wasn’t winning?
The next question is for the team–and we have to accept that this is the question they MUST answer and soon. Is Josh Lueke going to help this team win…to a level that is worth whatever public relations hassle having him on the team will cause?
Yes, the “Refuse to Abuse” campaign is important to the team’s public relations…but it has very little to do with the team’s play on the field or the team’s bottom line.
I doubt there’s ANYONE who has decided to go to Safeco Field because they take a strong stand against violence to women. That’s nice and commendable, but it isn’t the reason people choose to go to sporting events.
If the team feels that Josh Lueke is someone who can seriously help them win, then depending on his willingness to do so…he could be encouraged to speak out as a cautionary tale…of someone lucky to have been given a second chance, about how he wishes he’d have learned his lesson before he made such terrible, hurtful decisions…about how the type of thing that he did can’t be tolerated…that he’s paid the price and will live with the shame, regret and guilt forever.
…and then the team hopes that smooths over their PR problem with keeping him…at least until the team starts winning and the town gets caught up in all that…
If the team doesn’t win, then this will just be one more in the endless litany of complaints that will be launched at a disappointing organization.
Personally? There have been Mariners that I haven’t cheered for when they’re announced at the start of the game. But when they do something on the field that helps the team…I don’t care who they are or what I think about them, I’m cheering.
That means if Charles Manson could hit consistently with power, even in Safeco, in a Mariners uniform…I’d be with everybody in the stands, cheering like crazy when he knocked in the game winning run.
(And complaining like crazy whenever he’d go into a slump… Sorry, Charlie…)
There are some rather fringe elements of feminism that will say that any sex with a drunk woman is rape. I think that’s a bit extreme, but the point they’re trying to get at is that sex, at it’s heart, must be consensual by both partners. If a partner has a diminished capacity (in the literal, not legal sense) to consent, then to whatever degree they were impaired, so too was their consent limited.
I’m not asking you to agree with the statement that sex with a drunk woman is automatically rape. But you have to acknowledge that the story as given to us indicates that she was beyond just ‘a little drunk’. In her last stated memory of the night, she was sick, and on the verge of passing out. We’re not talking about a slippery slope of ‘just a little drunk’ here. And, I would also mention that one of the original charges was that she had been drugged. Presumably the dispute is in whether or not Lueke drugged her, but she was clearly out of it.
I’m not sure where you got the idea that I was making a legal argument. Consent is more than just a legal concept. Her inability to legally consent may or may not be immediately relevant, but it serves as a pretty serviceable benchmark. Either way, though, my point was about her *actual* ability to consent, not her legal ability.
As to your second question, if she was that piss drunk, then the game’s up. He’s not entitled to sex with her, and I can’t stress that enough. A tie doesn’t go to the runner here (and yes, I do feel bad for making that analogy). If his story has any truth to it then it’s unfortunate because she had given him every indication that she was interested, but if she isn’t consenting at the time of the act then that’s where it ends.
Well, nobody’s ever “entitled” to sex, regardless of circumstances, that’s sort of implicit in requiring consent in the first place.
Right. So if she was incapable of giving consent and she said something he believed was consent, then he should have known it wasn’t.
Drunk people are capable of “consent” (i.e., saying yes) while at the same time they are incapable of being able to consent legally. You have repeatedly stressed the latter point, and drawn a legal conclusion (therefore, “rape”) without acknowledging that an equally or nearly equally incapacitated young man may not have had the experience or even the ability to make the distinction you are trying to make. My main point is that his moral (and legal) culpability in that situation is less than you seem willing to consider, and definitely impacts my opinion on whether he deserves a second chance.
putnamp said:
This boils down the essence of our disagreement. I think you are asking a lot of a horny, drunk, 19-year-old (even if you are legally correct), and focusing an awful lot on her incapacity while ignoring his.
I don’t really care if people are going to root for or against Lueke, or think he should or shouldn’t have the chance to play for the Mariners. What I want to avoid repeating is a Carlos Guillen scenario where the club screws itself out of a great talent and simultaneously sabotages the trade value of the player to the extent that they get nothing but garbage in return. If Armstrong hadn’t pitched such a fit about this, they probably could have turned around and traded him to somebody else for a decent return, but his actions have drawn so much attention to it that I doubt anybody in MLB wants to create the same firestorm around their own clubs.
For that reason alone, I really hope Leuke doesn’t get traded and has a nice run with the Mariners.
That doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. When they use the term “drugged” they are referring to “any intoxicating
or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance”. The applicable statute is California Penal Code 261(a)(3). In this case they are simply referring to her being blacked out drunk.
I couldn’t possibly have said this any better.
Pete/Faceplant/Putnamp – I think/hope you are getting into the theoretical weeds here, because the coverage suggests that (according to the victim and others in the house) she was actually passed out at the time the sex occurred.
The circumstantial evidence that she was passed out
It it not too much to ask of a horny, drunk, 19-year-old not to have sex with (or “falsely imprison with violence”) someone who is passed out. He committed a crime, and one the Mariners need him to own up to if he wants a chance to succeed in a career where he is by definition a public figure.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
The piece by the criminal defense attorney posted on Seattle Sports Insider was very helpful. It, along with the radio interview with Lueke’s attorney, helped me see just how much my perception of this story was shaped by the Seattle Times reporter. I’m not going to condemn Lueke based on that article.
As Dave points out so often, we don’t know everything. I’d want to know more before I decided that this player should be punished further.
Come and pitch for Seattle Josh—but don’t be foolish, you won’t get another chance. Let your actions demonstrate that you’ve learned from your mistake.
It impacts my opinion as well; what gave you the idea that it didn’t? It doesn’t change that he did it, but it affects how I feel about his likelihood to do it again, for example, or his capacity to be educated to the point that he knows better in the future. Doesn’t mean what he did was any easier on the victim, though.
I’m asking him not to have sex with someone who is absolutely piss drunk and possibly drugged. The fact that nobody ever taught him that this was a bad idea doesn’t excuse him from having done it. I’m sorry, but I’m not going to buy into the suggestion that horny, drunk, 19-year-old guys are not as obligated to Not Rape People as others.
Someone, I don’t remember who at this point, floated the suggestion that “for all we know, it was consensual”, and I’m arguing that given what we know from the article posted in this entry that she was utterly trashed, there’s no way it could’ve been consensual. If she was in fact passed out, then that makes my case a bit easier, but even if she wasn’t, I feel it’s important to point out that if a girl is completely wasted, even though you may think she’s giving you the green light, you’re still treading a dangerous line by doing it anyway.
I also had a hell of a time finding any other accounts of the rape. All the common search terms just lead to people hand-wringing over Seattle’s acquiring him, and very little of it seems to involve actual documentation of the case itself. If you have sources could you link them? I’d really like to give them a look.
for:
and
Thank you Pete. Well said.
While I agree that Josh needs watching (for patterns of behavior) I’m not willing to throw him to the wolves just yet. Dave is right that we will never know the full details of this story. They were both probably highly intoxicated and there is a possibility that the sex was consentual even though she may not remember it. He could be guilty of rape, or he could be guilty of stupidly putting himself in bad situations. Sex criminals generally always display a pattern of behavior and a progression of their crimes. If there is no past and no future of sex crimes for him then we can assume is was a stupid isolated error in judgement. A big assumption as there could be unknown things from his past. But we can’t very well condemn him for an imagined history. Josh, be smarter.
putnamp has done an admirable job of patiently explaining his position. I am thankful for that.
I seem to be in the clear minority here but I really don’t think that it’s too much to ask that a horny, drunk 19 year old not have sex with an unconscious person. I’m flabbergasted that so many feel that this is an unreasonable expectation.
It would be like not allowing a ball player that got a DUI to play again. A drunken night and a bad mistake is no worse than someone getting smashed and driving a car. I feel bad for the victim, dont get me wrong.. But no one knows what was said and done that night. Im sorry, get over the story, let the guy play ball.
Jake Squid put it beautifully: sure, assume this was a drunken mistake. I’ve made drunken mistakes. But none of those mistakes included, or rose to the level of, having sex with an unconscious woman. Has anyone here done something as bad as that when plastered?
Seriously. I’ve been seriously drunk before, I’ve partied drunk with lots of people I didn’t really know, and been around people who were equally drunk, and no one did anything like that, ever. I never would have considered it. Why should folks be understanding that he did?
Plain and simple, both parties made a mistake. Honestly, any chick that hangs out at the ballpark waiting for players after the game, leaves with said players that she doesn’t even know and goes out drinking with them and finds herself at their house late night should have used way better judgement, just like Josh. It’s unfortunately a really bad situation that all parties contributed to, without question. I will bet that the truth is not as nasty as the opinions, legal and professional ramifications will ever be. Oh, did anybody read the depositions and declarations from the victim? I did! As somebody that workss in the legal field and has access, all she wanted was an apology from him in court which is pretty standard for something along these unfortunate lines. Chill out Seattle!!!
Yes, they both made mistakes. You’re implying an equivalence, though, that is both grossly mistaken and kinda scarily close to the “asking for it” trope. If you don’t think there’s an equivalence there, then you didn’t do a very good job of showing what distinction you see between the two and their choice of actions.
As convenient as it might seem, acting like this was everybody’s mistake is both wrong and destructive, so I really hope that’s not where you’re going with that.
The point that was being made though is that he may also have been absolutely piss drunk, and you’re requiring a degree of coherence from him that you are saying she was not capable of. You’re saying that even if she did say yes (and of course I don’t know if she did) she is not responsible for it, but he is still responsible for his consent.
Personally, I think that it is likely that Lueke is a bad person who is or was willing to have sex with an unconsious woman, but it is not impossible that they were both really drunk and had consentual sex and she doesn’t remember it. It is not satisfying to not know in situations like this, but I don’t think that we do know.
MarcS wrote:
MarcS (and Jake Squid, Harry, Putnamp, and others I am probably forgetting):
You are correct. Despite several characterizations to the contrary, I have been very careful to lay out the framework of this discussion on my end.
I realize that the victim says she was passed out (or at least doesn’t remember) at the time (though I was not aware that there was testimony to that effect from anybody other than the victim – I have read most accounts of this and have not seen that; please post your sources for that as I would like to read them). I hope you also realize that Josh Lueke says this isn’t true, and that the sex was consensual.
Like many cases, this is a “he said-she said” situation. My entire discussion of this has been based on the idea, as Dave said, that we cannot know the truth of what happened that night. My guess is that the prosecutor would not have agreed to Lueke’s eventual plea had there not been some problems with proving the rape charge under the facts as alleged by the victim, but again I don’t (and can’t) really know. But for the purposes of this discussion, I’ve asked that you assume that he is telling the truth.
I have not defended Josh Lueke’s actions, which I find deplorable even when assuming that his story represents the truth of the matter. I am suggesting, however, that his moral culpability (and my willingness to give him a chance for redemption) for his actions changes quite a bit depending on where the truth lies. Those who seem to want to criticize my position because of the assumption I have made (again, for the purposes of argument only) are themselves making an assumption that the victim’s testimony represents “the truth” and don’t seem willing to consider any other possibility.
He’s served his time according to the law. If the prosecution felt that there was a strong case to prove he raped her, they would have proceeded with it. DA’s aren’t in the habit of letting people off with plea bargains when there is evidence of a more serious crime. From the reading of the case, this woman willingly partied with these guys, willingly got drunk with them, and then willingly went home with 2 of them. I’m not saying that means she should be forced to have sex with them, and that something bad didn’t happen, but its obvious that the rape charges would have been impossible to prove in court.
The guy has served his sentence according to the law. He has complied with every single requirement of his employer since being released. He’s fully entitled to his career, as outlined by both the legal process and his employer.
Oh come on, we’ve been over this like 3 times. The DA just as easily, and in fact very probably, could’ve dropped the charges because the victim didn’t want to go through with a full trial. Rape is not like other crimes in this regard because generally rape victims suffer a lot of apprehension and social pressure around testifying. I’ve said this repeatedly, as have others. Please take a minute to read or something, instead of assuming that nobody’s ever thought of this genius thing you’re about to post.
I am a little late to the party, but this statement really irked me. I understand that putnamp is being honest in his/her thoughts, but I need to point out the inconsistency.
This post assumes they were both drunk.
Feminism deals with equality, man and woman are equal. It is a rejection of patriarchy. The point putnamp has advanced is in keeping with patriarchy. Two drunk individuals having sex, the onus is on the MAN to establish consent because the WOMAN is incapable. The whole thinking is warped. If both people are equal and both people are drunk, it is sexist to ascribe to one of the parties culpability because he is the man. Indeed, it is patriarchal in nature, the opposite of feminism. You are saying the woman is incapable, only the man can make this choice.
Now there may be varying degrees of inebriation. But, it is difficult legally and morally to differentiate between brown-out drunk and black-out drunk.
If they were both drunk and consent was giving in this state, it is entirely sexist to attach culpability to Lueke will treating the woman as a victim.